共 50 条
Cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors for second-line HR+/HER2− advanced or metastatic breast cancer in China
被引:0
|作者:
Caifeng Jia
[1
]
Sen Zhang
[2
]
Jie Wang
[3
]
Bing Feng
[4
]
Fenghao Shi
[5
]
Meiqi Wang
[6
]
Sainan Li
[7
]
Hao Xu
[7
]
Mingxia Wang
[8
]
机构:
[1] The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University,Department of Clinical Pharmacology
[2] The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University,Department of Pharmacy
[3] Hebei Medical University,Department of Pharmacy
[4] The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University,Department of Clinical Pharmacy
[5] Peking University,International Research Center for Medicinal Administration
[6] Peking University,School of Pharmaceutical Sciences
[7] The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University,Department of Breast Center
[8] The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University,Department of Medical Insurance
来源:
关键词:
CDK4/6 inhibitors;
Fulvestrant;
Cost-effectiveness;
HR-positive/HER2-negative;
Breast cancer;
China;
D O I:
10.1038/s41598-025-97504-3
中图分类号:
学科分类号:
摘要:
Hormone receptor HR-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2−) breast cancer is the most common subtype in China, representing 60–70% of cases, with a rising incidence due to aging demographics and lifestyle changes. CDK4/6 inhibitors such as palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib have been proven effective in treating HR+/HER2 − advanced or metastatic breast cancer (ABC/MBC), though they may increase healthcare costs. This study aims to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors for the second-line treatment of HR+/HER2 − ABC/MBC from the Chinese healthcare perspective. A cohort-based partitioned survival model was utilized, drawing on the survival data published from PALOMA-3, MONALEESA-3 and MONARCH-2 trials. Costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a 15-year time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model results. In the base-case analysis, the model estimated health benefits to be 2.10 QALYs for palbociclib plus fulvestrant (PAL + FUL), 2.55 QALYs for ribociclib plus fulvestrant (RIB + FUL), and 2.60 QALYs for abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (ABE + FUL), with corresponding costs of $34,423, $41,119, and $48,019. Compared with PAL + FUL, the ICERs were $27,161 per QALY for ABE + FUL and $15,073 per QALY for RIB + FUL. The robustness of these findings was confirmed through uncertainty analyses. Among the three strategies, the most cost-effective probabilities of PAL + FUL, RIB + FUL and ABE + FUL were 0%, 99.8%, and 0.2% under the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 3 times per-capita gross domestic product ($37,738) in China. This study indicated that both RIB + FUL and ABE + FUL are cost-effective at the WTP threshold compared with PAL + FUL. Notably, RIB + FUL offers the greatest cost-effective advantage for the second-line treatment of HR+/HER2 − ABC/MBC among these three CDK4/6 inhibitors.
引用
收藏
相关论文